An executive order signed by President Trump on April 28, 2025 — Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens — lays out a sweeping plan to bolster law enforcement across the country.
From pro bono legal support for officers to potential reversals of federal consent decrees, the order sets the stage for major changes in how policing operates in the United States. Some elements of the order will be controversial and likely face court challenges. Here’s a breakdown of its key provisions — and what they could mean for the future of law enforcement policy, operations, and oversight.
Targeting DEI and equity-based policies
The first section of the order is part of the Trump administration’s dismantling of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) programs in the public and private sectors. Specifically, it states, “My Administration will work to ensure that law enforcement officers across America focus on ending crime, not pursuing harmful race- and sex-based ‘equity’ policies.” Exactly what impact this might have on day-to-day police operations is difficult to say. An agency with a strong DEI personnel program in place might find itself disfavored when competing for federal grants and other funding.
Expanding legal protection for officers
The second section provides “legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law.” Nine major law firms have committed to offering a total of $940 million in pro bono legal work for this and other causes favored by the Trump administration.
Law enforcement agencies and the governments that sponsor them are generally required to indemnify (provide legal defense and pay most damages) law enforcement officers who are sued due to actions they took in the scope of their duties, even if those actions resulted in harm. One problem with this arrangement is that the attorney for the officer(s) and the attorney for the government are often the same person, even though the interests of the two parties are not exactly the same. The officer(s) are generally most interested in being vindicated and clearing their names, while the government’s primary interest is to minimize costs.
Because the government’s interest is usually the one that takes precedence, many civil lawsuits are settled privately over the objections of the defendant officers, who want their day in court. Because litigation is expensive, the government often sees a settlement as the less costly option, even when the case for the officers is strong.
The availability of pro bono legal support for law enforcement officers may change this paradigm, at least in the short term.
Federal priorities — and a potential end to consent decrees
The third section of the executive order has two parts. The first is a directive to the U.S. Attorney General to use federal resources for advocacy to improve the legal and administrative environment for law enforcement. It favors:
- New practices to police crime aggressively
- Expanded access to police training of improved quality
- Better pay and legal protections for police
- Enhanced sentences for those convicted of crimes against law enforcement officers
- Better security and capacity for prisons
- Increased investment in collection, distribution and uniformity of crime data.
The executive order does not allocate or specify where funding for these initiatives should come from. Funding is generally the job of Congress, which holds “the power of the purse.”
The second part of this section has the potentially greater impact on law enforcement. It gives the Attorney General 60 days to review all “ongoing Federal consent decrees, out-of-court agreements, and post-judgment orders to which a State or local law enforcement agency is a party, and modify, rescind, or move to conclude such measures that unduly impede the performance of law enforcement functions.”
On Monday, April 28, President Donald Trump signed Executive Orders focused on law enforcement and the protection of American communities. Members of the National Sheriffs’ Association Executive Committee were invited to attend.
— National Sheriffs' Association (@NationalSheriff) April 30, 2025
Learn More: https://t.co/4Qj8GlKLj1 pic.twitter.com/5DxA3yHUCU
This is potentially huge. There are over 25 law enforcement agencies and/or jails presently operating under federal consent decrees. These generally follow lawsuits filed against the agency when the court finds there is a pattern of practice inconsistent with justice and/or civil rights.
Consent degrees require the court appointment of a monitor to oversee all operations and usually massive collection of data that quickly becomes burdensome for the agency and its employees. The agency operating under the decree has to essentially seek the permission and approval of the monitor to make any administrative or operational changes, constraining the executive’s ability to act and run the organization.
Further, the agency has to pay the costs of the monitor and the programs they mandate, and these costs are usually massive. Albuquerque, New Mexico, has spent over $25 million, $10 million of that to pay the monitor, on its consent decree. That expenditure hasn’t done much to improve public safety, as evidenced by the city’s recent request and subsequent deployment of National Guard troops in the city to assist with tasks that do not directly involve law enforcement. The City of Ferguson, Missouri (pop. 18,000), where the Michael Brown shooting incident took place in 2014, estimates it will spend $6 to $10 million administering its consent decree.
Consent decrees have no expiration date. They are seldom resolved in less than five years, and extending past 10 years is hardly rare. More than one otherwise effective chief or sheriff has thrown in the towel and resigned when they couldn’t take any more of having to ask permission to do their jobs.
As happy as many cops will be to see their consent decrees go away, there will be equal protesting on the civil rights advocacy side when the monitors are withdrawn and the agencies can return to normal operations. We can hope these factions can come to a truce without court-ordered supervision, but that might be too much to wish for.
Deploying national security resources to support policing
The fourth section of Trump’s executive order directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, with the input of the Secretary of Homeland Security, to increase the availability of military and national security assets to state and local police. There is not a lot of specificity here. The designated cabinet members have 90 days to determine how these resources can best be used for crime prevention.
Accountability for obstructionist officials
Section five, without mentioning so-called “sanctuary cities” specifically, seems to target their elected and appointed officials. It directs the Attorney General to prosecute officials who “willfully and unlawfully direct the obstruction of criminal law, including by directly and unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties necessary to public safety and law enforcement.” A second clause condemns DEI-related discrimination or civil rights violations that restrict law enforcement activity.
There are at least 211 U.S. cities and counties that have directed their officers to refuse to cooperate with or assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in the apprehension of persons unlawfully residing in the United States. In recent weeks, ICE has engaged in aggressive enforcement actions pursuant to Trump’s campaign promise to deport more illegal immigrants than ever before.
This portion of the order could invite a showdown of sorts. Some local governments will rescind their directions to refuse to help ICE, but others will no doubt defy the president and order the prohibitions kept in place.
Coordination with Homeland Security Task Forces
Finally, the sixth portion of the executive order directs the various Homeland Security Task Forces formed by another executive order in January 2025 to “coordinate and advance the objectives of this order.” There are a variety of these, each focused on a specific enforcement area, such as border security, cyber fraud, and reunification of families separated at the border between the U.S. and Mexico.
What’s next?
Immediate execution of the provisions of this extraordinary document is anything but a slam dunk. The list of court challenges to Trump’s executive orders is long and getting longer. The more controversial elements will almost certainly be challenged immediately, although the president has not been bashful about ignoring some court-ordered stays of his policies. As he is fond of saying, “We’ll see what happens” as the government tries to implement this directive.
